[linux-audio-user] Specifying the license when posting music?

[Mark Constable]

On Friday 19 August 2005 21:32, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> >>we are  
> >>basically, through a sort of informal contract, issuing stuff under a
> >>Creative Commons license every time we post our music here
> > 
> > That's an assumption on your part which I don't share. You have to consciously 
> > accept a contract (i.e. sign it or =) in order for it to be binding under 
> > British law (ANAL). I think you have to at least shake hands in order for it 
> > even to be considered a 'gentleman's agreement'.

Zillions of people all over the world accept online EULA
agreements all the time without being anywhere near anyone
else, or signing anything, and I'm not aware of that principle
being challenged in any country.

> >>- if we 
> >>*weren't*, then we'd potentially be exposing everyone on the list to
> >>breaking the law.
> > 
> > Really?!? I will be very careful about what I post on this list if that _is_ 
> > the case. It would be good to clarify this.
> 
> well, i guess stuff like this:
> 
> http://opensrc.org/index.php?page=RadIO
> 
> has everyone on that list given explicit permission to be listed there?

I have, in fact, asked nearly all the authors of those links,
offlist, whether they're cool about their music being linked to
from that page. There has been no objections so far, and to the
point I would perhaps assume in the future that it is indeed
okay, without asking, to continue adding more links UNLESS a
a posting to this list said or inferred elsewise.

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that if someone posts a link
to their music into this mailing-list that it also okay to re-post
that link into another venue UNLESS they accompany their post with
explicit restrictions outlining what can or cannot be done with a
LINK that points to their work.

There is no argument about the copyright status in the US and most
(western) countries since 1976 when the rules were changed that all
created works are automatically copyrighted by the author. I'm old
enough to remember the days when all works were automatically in
the then ill-defined public domain unless explicitly copyrighted.

These days there are also two distribution issues, the source
material and the medium it's stored on, and linking to it via a
network to where it's stored. In the case of RadIO, those links
are entirely passive UNTIL someone actively clicks on one, then
some kind of (re)usage issue could be debated.

> doesn't this count as distribution? maybe it doesn't, but this is the 
> sort of thing i'm talking about. i don't know lots about copyright and 
> licensing, but a discussion of it is highly welcome. i mean, i highly 
> doubt anyone thinks RadIO is anything but useful to promoting their 
> music, but you never know ...

If any, I'd like to see some less than restrictive guidelines
but I am only speaking for myself as I'd hate to see the free
flow of music restricted by bureaucratic lawyer-food BS.

If someone posts any material into a public forum without any
redistribution license then they are NOT denying anyone else
the ability to do anything they want with the material short
of changing the copyright. The onus should be on the author to
either make it clear what their intentions are, IF they are in
anyway concerned about these issues, OR simply not make their
material publically available in the first place. Certainly not
with expectations that "the rest of the world" will then be
burdened with clearing any re-usage conditions with that author.
That could lead to a hideous lockup of freely available material
which I am pretty sure the majority of people on this list are
not in favour of.

My POV FWIW.

--markc